# 2024-280 Releases, Compulsory Retirement Age, Medical Employment Limitation

Case summary

F&R Date: 2026-03-24

The grievor challenged the decision to release him from the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) under item 3(b) - Medical of the table to article 15.01 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces (QR&O) on the completion of his third Continuous Engagement beyond Compulsory Retirement Age (CRA) 60, the date to which his Terms of Service expired. The grievor had requested, and was supported by his chain of command, for a fourth extension beyond CRA 60, as his occupation was suffering from critical shortages. Despite not having a valid Fitness for Operational Requirements of Canadian Armed Forces Employment (FORCE) test due to medical employment limitations, the grievor argued his previous CRA extensions were approved without a valid FORCE test. The grievor sought financial compensation for a two year period. 

The Initial Authority failed to render a decision within the prescribed time limit under paragraph 7.15(2) of the QR&O. Accordingly, the grievor requested their file be forwarded to the Final Authority (FA) for consideration in accordance with QR&O paragraph 7.15(4).

The Committee found that, in the grievor's case, Table E to article 15.31 of the QR&O applied, directing that non-commissioned members shall be released upon reaching retirement age, which for the grievor was age 60. However, QR&O 15.31(7) grants the Chief of Defence Staff the authority to authorize retention of non-commissioned members beyond that date, which is administered through Assistant Deputy Minister (Human Resources–Military) Instruction (ADM(HR-Mil) Instr) 14/04, The Canadian Forces (Regular Force and Primary Reserve) Compulsory Retirement Age 60. The Committee found that this spoke to the robustness of the CRA boundary as a strategic imperative for the CAF to generate and sustain its operational effectiveness and such extensions are not a right or entitlement, but an exceptional measure based primarily on service requirements. 

The Committee determined that there is a lack of clearly defined criteria governing the approval of extensions beyond CRA 60 in either ADM(HR-Mil) Instr 14/04 or Canadian Forces Military Personnel Instr 05/05, Terms of Service. In particular, the reliance on a valid FORCE test as a determining factor to approve extensions was found to be unsupported by policy and inconsistently applied, especially given that the grievor's prior CRA 60 extensions were approved when he did not have a valid FORCE test. The Committee found that the denial of a subsequent extension was inconsistent with prior decisions and relied on considerations not clearly communicated or grounded in established policy. 

The Committee concluded that the grievor was treated unfairly and aggrieved. However, the grievor was not entitled to compensation under Compensation and Benefits Instruction for the Canadian Forces 204.51, as no service was rendered. 

The Committee recommended that the FA acknowledge the lack of clarity in the approval and denial of the grievor's CRA extension requests and acknowledge the unfair manner he was treated.